How Afghanistan’s Money Exchangers Have Worked Around the Taliban
By Nafay Choudhury
A year after the Taliban took power, Afghanistan’s money exchangers are being squeezed by economic turmoil and harsh rules implemented by the new regime. But while their market has certainly seen better days, the 400 exchangers hustling in Kabul’s central exchange show no signs of letting up. Each day, they continue to churn a wide range of financial services, offering not just currency exchanges, but also money transfers, savings accounts, and even loans to reliable customers.
Despite facing unique challenges under the Taliban’s regime, exchangers have become the lifeline of the Afghan economy. Over much of the past decade, I’ve studied the resilience of Afghan market actors, and during my visit to Afghanistan in September, exchangers had strategized and adjusted to the new normal. As Afghanistan’s banks have been cut off from the international financial system, exchangers provide one of the few remaining financial connections between the country and the outside world.
The story of Afghanistan’s exchangers reveals how local market actors can quickly adapt to political and economic change. In times of prosperity, exchangers bolster growth by taking calculated risks; in times of crisis, they manage to maintain core financial services. Throughout their century-long history, exchangers’ ability to resist being captured and co-opted by the state has allowed them to outlive the rise and fall of regimes while remaining at the core of the Afghan economy.
After the Taliban takeover, many exchangers believed that regulations on their market would be relaxed. The previous government had used legislation in an effort to progressively extend its authority over the market, whereas during the Taliban’s reign in the late 1990s, the market was completely unregulated.
This time, however, the Taliban chose to double down. The guarantee that each exchanger is required to deposit in Da Afghanistan Bank, the country’s central bank, has increased tenfold, from $3,000 to $30,000. The Taliban have also been adamant that exchangers be converted from sole proprietorships to multistakeholder businesses, which helps create a paper trail and makes it easier for the government to trace the movement of funds. Under the previous government, exchangers had fiercely resisted this kind of change, since it would have exposed them to greater risk by making their funds accessible to other exchangers. Now, exchangers have acquiesced to the demand.
Central bank audits have also become more stringent. As one exchanger told me, “Before, they would only look at the books we gave them, but now, they search everywhere in our shop to see if we have other books hidden.”
There are a few possible explanations for the Taliban’s rigid approach. Some exchangers posit that since the Taliban previously relied on exchangers when they were insurgents, they now want to ensure that opposition groups do not use exchangers against them. Others say that the Taliban are keen to collect tax from exchangers. Still others argue that these rules help ensure that nervous exchangers do not abscond with the funds of their customers, as a few exchangers have done since the Taliban’s takeover.
Whatever their exact rationale, the Taliban have not been able to completely extend their control over money exchangers. For one, exchangers have devised new strategies for appeasing—and at times eluding—Taliban officials. They have positioned themselves as a self-governing community, siding with the government when doing so benefits them and resisting the government when it does not. This February, exchangers joined ranks with the Taliban in calling on the United States to unfreeze Da Afghanistan Bank’s $7 billion in assets. However, last month, exchangers resisted attempts by the Taliban to ban the yearly elections for the president of the exchange market, thereby retaining control over internal market affairs. For exchangers driven by the bottom line, allegiances are fleeting, which ultimately facilitates the longevity of the market.
More importantly, the Taliban know that the exchangers’ informal money transfer system, known as hawala, is the only financial link that connects Afghanistan to the outside world. Hawalas help remittances enter the country and allow local traders to pay their foreign suppliers—even those in neighboring countries that have stopped providing visas to Afghans. Small and medium businesses rely heavily on exchangers for both hawalas and loans to help them import goods. In January, the Norwegian Refugee Council found that more than 70 humanitarian nongovernmental organizations use hawalas. Without them, humanitarian suffering would only intensify.
Like the previous government, the Taliban also depend on exchangers to stabilize the value of the afghani currency through U.S. dollar auctions, where Da Afghanistan Bank sells U.S. dollars to exchangers to soak up excess afghanis in circulation that could otherwise devalue the local currency.
Exchangers’ work has become only more crucial as Afghanistan’s economic calamity worsens. A combination of sanctions, the termination of international assistance, and the exodus of hundreds of thousands of Afghans has caused the economy to shrink by some 30 percent since August 2021. The U.N. Development Programme estimates that since last year, the economy has lost nearly $5 billion. Due to widespread unemployment, approximately 50 percent of the population suffers from critical levels of food insecurity.
Half of Da Afghanistan Bank’s assets have remained bogged down by litigations in U.S. courts since August 2021 over whether 9/11 victims and their families should be entitled to Afghan public funds. Washington recently transferred the other half to a Swiss-based trust, the Bank for International Settlements, to be used to stabilize the Afghan economy while avoiding any engagement with the Taliban. The mechanics of that assistance remain opaque and will likely be mired in logistical and political wrangling that keeps reserve assets all but out of reach for the Afghan people. As a trickle of hope, though, the U.S. government and its partners recently facilitated the transfer of a small portion of these funds so that 10 billion afghanis’ worth of newly minted bills could be sent to Afghanistan—a measure sorely needed as sanctions on afghanis’ import until now have led to money literally crumbling beyond repair.
Banks have been pushed to their breaking point as they have been cut off from the global financial system, no longer able to engage in international transfers. Money is steadily flowing out of their coffers. Every day, customers line up at 5 a.m. for their weekly withdrawal of $400, a limit mandated by the Taliban to prevent a complete run on the banks. All banks have drastically downsized their operations, with branches remaining in only a few major Afghan cities. Public trust in banks has been destroyed for the next few decades.
Even in their heyday, banks played a limited role in society and could not replace exchangers. In the past two decades, bank customers have hailed primarily from city centers. According to the World Bank, only around 15 percent of the adult population possessed bank accounts as of 2020—and many of those people required those accounts only to receive their salary, which they then withdrew in full. Moreover, Afghan banks have been very conservative in providing loans since a banking crisis hit the country in 2010, when one of the country’s major banks, Kabul Bank, was found to be engaging in fraudulent activities. In 2019, the World Bank reported Afghanistan as having a 3 percent loan-to-GDP ratio—the lowest of all countries globally. That year, the global average of loan-to-GDP ratios was 59 percent; even conflict-afflicted Democratic Republic of the Congo reported a ratio more than double that of Afghanistan. Then, like now, Afghan customers simply could not depend on banks for loans.
Afghanistan’s banking sector succeeded in servicing an elite few but failed to make inroads into wider society. The sector depended on the previous government functioning—not only so it could maintain links with the international financial system, but also because financial activities associated with the state (employee salaries, development projects, businesses servicing government offices) were a primary source of capital for banks. Once that regime was toppled, the sector’s foundation fell from below. Conversely, money exchangers operate from the bottom up, having incrementally developed their financial services across society. They have always resisted undue interference from the state.
Financial crises in Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Argentina, and elsewhere in just the past several years serve as a humble reminder that the mere presence of a banking sector does not attest to its soundness. In Afghanistan, banks have foundered since the Taliban takeover, while money exchangers have adapted, keeping the entire economy afloat. While their profit margins are down, their market remains intact as they seek out new financial opportunities. Their continued success is linked to their independence from the state, their ability to innovate, and the wide reach of their financial network, which penetrates deep into society.
History teaches us that Afghan money exchangers are here for the long haul. At present, supporting Afghan banks is necessary to ensure that customers receive their hard-earned savings. While ideally this would require that Da Afghanistan Bank gain access to its full reserves, at minimum, any commercial banking funds currently frozen abroad should be released. Yet it is exchangers, rather than banks, who will ensure that financial services remain available to laypeople and businesses across the country in the days to come.
Nafay Choudhury is a British Academy research fellow at the University of Oxford. He is also a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Toronto and a research fellow at the Afghan Institute for Strategic Studies.
UK aid to Afghanistan entrenched corruption and injustice, report finds
Diplomatic editor
The Guardian
Wed 23 Nov 2022 19.01 EST
Government watchdog says £3.5bn aid in 20 years to 2020 failed to achieve aim of stabilising Afghan government
The UK’s £3.5bn aid to Afghanistan between 2000 and 2020 was implicated in corruption and human rights abuses and failed to achieve its primary objective of stabilising the country’s government, an assessment by the UK government’s aid watchdog has found.
Describing the two-decade aid project as the UK’s single most ambitious programme of state building, the Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) says decisions to spend aid on counterinsurgency operations were flawed, adding that efforts to reduce gender inequality are likely to be wiped out by the Taliban.
Money was spent on meeting the US’s excessively short-term objectives, the report finds. It suggests, on the basis of extensive interviews with senior UK government officials, that the UK had little influence on US strategy, even though it disagreed with the US decision to exclude the Taliban from any political settlement at a point when the Taliban were relatively weak.
The damning new ICAI report says: “Unwilling to challenge the US approach, the UK became publicly committed into a narrative of imminent success.”
It adds: “The commitment to aligning with the US left the UK locked into investing large amounts of aid into a state-building process which its own analysis suggested had limited prospects of success. As one senior official told us, ‘If we’ve invested in a state-shaped object that cannot command the loyalty or support of large parts of the population, it will amount to nothing.’”
The report says the UK spent £3.5bn in aid over the 20 years to 2020, of which £2.5bn was spent between 2014 and 2020.
The review says: “In complex stabilisation missions, large-scale financial support for the state should only be provided in the context of a viable and inclusive political settlement, when there are reasonable prospects of a sustained transition out of conflict.”
It adds: “UK aid should not be used to fund police or other security agencies to engage in paramilitary operations, as this entails unacceptable risks of doing harm. Any support for civilian security agencies should focus on providing security and justice to the public.”
The review finds that the UK spent £252m funding the salaries of the Afghan national police, describing this as a “questionable use of UK aid”, because the police were primarily assigned to counterinsurgency operations rather than civilian policing. Overall, the UK spent £400m over six years to help the Afghan security services. Efforts by UK aid officials to stop the funding were overruled at the highest levels of government, the report found.
“Channelling funding in such high volumes through weak state institutions distorted the political process and contributed to entrenched corruption,” the review finds. “The creation of a parallel institutional structure to manage international aid drew capacity away from the Afghan administration.” Between 2017 and 2020 the number of consultants in the ministry of finance only fell from 780 well paid staff to 585, the report reveals.
It adds the UK was mistaken to spend so much aid on US-designed objectives that entrenched corruption and human rights abuses, including semi-paramilitary objectives. It says the US was itself aware of its errors, with officials admitting: “The ultimate point of our failure was not an insurgency but endemic corruption.”
UK government documents cited by ICAI and written as late as 2019 “describe the situation as an extreme form of state capture, which benefited a narrow group of Afghan political elites at the expense of the population at large”.
“In these circumstances, there was little prospect of meaningful institutional development. One year on, in 2020, the Department for International Development assessed that central government institutions were largely unable to deliver on their mandates, despite years of financial and technical assistance. Afghan leaders saw them as fiefdoms for patronage, rather than mechanisms for promoting the public interest.”
The UK, the report says, “took a largely technocratic approach to building the capacity of state institutions, focusing on their internal systems and processes, rather than their relationships with Afghan society. It also left UK aid subordinate to rapidly changing objectives and short planning horizons in the security arena, leading to unrealistic assumptions about what was achievable.”
The scale of the aid and the way it was delivered meant by 2021, 98.7% of Afghans described corruption as a big problem for Afghanistan as a whole – up from 76% in 2014.
The report finds the UK was aware of the problems in the design in the aid programme, but “the UK’s determination to provide unconditional support to the US meant that there was no attempt to reconsider the approach to state-building, even as its prospects of success receded”.
The review finds the sheer scale of the aid resources funnelled through central state institutions was distorting. The Afghan state spent approximately $11bn each year, but raised only $2.5bn of its own resources, the report finds. Echoing previous studies it suggests it would have taken 35 years for the state to become self funding, leaving the Afghan state locked into an open-ended dependence on external aid.
The report finds: “Ultimately, the US decision to conclude an agreement with the Taliban in February 2020, setting a timetable for the unconditional withdrawal of US troops, made it necessary to abandon most of the objectives of the UK aid programme, despite heavy sunk costs.”
Islamic Emirate: Policy of Isolation Will Not Bring Results
UN experts denounce Taliban treatment of women as crime
By RAHIM FAIEZ
ISLAMABAD (AP) — The Taliban treatment of women and girls in Afghanistan may amount to a crime against humanity and should be investigated and prosecuted under international law, a U.N. team of experts said Friday.
The Taliban promptly rejected the allegation.
The statement by the U.N.-appointed experts followed a confirmation from the Taliban that three women were among 12 people lashed on Wednesday in front of hundreds of spectators at a provincial sports stadium. It signaled the Taliban’s resumption of a brutal form of punishment that was a hallmark of their rule in the 1990s.
And on Nov. 11 in Taloqan in northeastern Takhar province, 10 men and nine women were lashed 39 times each in the presence of elders, scholars and residents at the city’s main mosque after Friday prayers. They were accused of adultery, theft and running away from home.
The U.N. experts said the latest Taliban actions against women and girls have deepened existing rights violations — already the “most draconian globally” — and may constitute gender persecution, which is a crime against humanity.
They have banned girls from middle school and high school, restricted women from most employment, and ordered them to wear head-to-toe clothing in public. Women are also banned from parks, gyms, and funfairs.
Lashings in public, as well as public executions and stoning for purported crimes were common across Afghanistan during the first period of Taliban rule, from 1996 until 2001, when they were driven out in a U.S.-led invasion following the September 11 terrorist attacks. The Taliban had sheltered al-Qaida and its leader, Osama bin Laden.
The experts’ statement did not specifically mention the cases of public lashings but said the Taliban have beaten men accompanying women wearing colorful clothing or without a face covering.
“We are deeply concerned that such actions are intended to compel men and boys to punish women and girls who resist the Taliban’s erasure of them, further depriving them of their rights, and normalizing violence against them,” it said.
The expert team, appointed by the U.N. Human Rights Council, includes Richard Bennett, special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan, and Farida Shaheed, special rapporteur on the right to education.
The Taliban-appointed spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Abdul Qahar Balkhi, rejected the experts’ statement and fired back at the U.N. for sanctioning the former insurgents who now rule Afghanistan.
Sanctions on Taliban officials and the freezing of billions in foreign currency reserves have restricted access to global institutions and outside money that had supported Afghanistan’s aid-dependent economy before the withdrawal of U.S. and NATO forces.
No country in the world has recognized the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, as the Taliban call their administration, leaving them internationally and financially isolated.
The International Committee of the Red Cross said Thursday it was seeing a spike in cases of child pneumonia and malnutrition, with the poverty level increasing compared to previous years, as humanitarian conditions plummet and the country braces itself for a second winter under Taliban rule.
Two-Thirds of Afghan Households Struggle to Meet Basic Needs: World Bank
Islamic Emirate Accuses US of not Living Up to Doha Agreement
Khalilzad Urges Islamic Emirate to Start Consultative Process
European Parliament Commits to Support Afghan People
Critics lament exclusion of Afghanistan from COP27
The call for funding grows for diplomatically isolated Afghanistan, which has faced natural disasters because of climate change.
Afghan climate activist Abdulhadi Achakzai was the only representative of his country at the United Nations COP27 climate conference held recently in the Egyptian resort city of Sharm el-Sheikh.
The South Asian nation was excluded from the summit, as the country has remained diplomatically isolated since the Taliban recaptured power last August after 20 years.
As the climate summit kicked off on November 6, the UN mission in Afghanistan called for urgent collective climate action, saying the country is “one of the least prepared against climate shocks”.
It added that Afghanistan is the sixth most affected in the world by climate-related threats, with the country facing frequent droughts, flash floods and landslides affecting livelihoods and infrastructure.
Achakzai, the unofficial representative of his country at the international summit, took the opportunity to educate delegates about the climate crisis in Afghanistan and bring the issue to the agenda of participants.
Experts have blamed climate change for the frequent natural disasters in the country, and are calling for international funding to address the problem.
“I would stop everyone I met and ask them: ‘Have you heard about Afghanistan?’ I would then tell them about the situation in our country, the suffering of our people because of climate change,” said Achakzai, who is director of the Environmental Volunteer Network (EVN), an NGO based in the capital Kabul.
The non-profit works to bring awareness and training on climate issues across the county.
“Everyone seems to agree with me when I said that Afghanistan is among the most vulnerable countries affected by climate change, but few were willing to take action,” Achakzai told Al Jazeera.
Funds have dried up
International organisations and stakeholders remain wary of engaging with the Taliban, which currently runs the country of 38 million. Funding for both developmental and climate projects has dried up because of international sanctions.
The Taliban expressed its disappointment at being excluded from COP27 during a press conference on November 10.
“Climate change has no national boundaries and the issue should not have been politicalised,” Hafiz Aziz Rahman, the acting head of Afghanistan’s National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA), said, criticising Afghanistan’s exclusion from the conference.
Rahman highlighted the frequent droughts ravaging Afghanistan despite the country playing hardly any role in causing climate change.
Ramiz Alakbarov, deputy special representative of the UN Secretary-General for Afghanistan, agreed with the need for urgent attention to the country’s climate woes.
“Action for Afghanistan is needed now. We cannot wait. Afghans do not have time to wait. It will take all sides finding common ground and common cause to work towards a sustainable future for Afghanistan,“ Alakbarov said.
“We also have to be clear: this problem is not specific to Afghanistan. It is a larger regional issue and not acting in Afghanistan now will create a considerable setback in climate action for the entire region.”
But international funding for climate solutions in Afghanistan has dwindled drastically since last year.
The Afghan environment agency, NEPA, revealed in August that the international community had halted 32 environmental protection projects worth $805m since the Taliban takeover.
Exclusion from climate dialogue
The Afghan academic and scientific community are, meanwhile, warning of dire consequences for excluding Afghanistan from the dialogue on climate strategy.
“Some of the immediate climate concerns are frequent droughts and flash floods, followed by forest fires, [and] glaciers’ shrinkages,” pointed out Najibullah Sadid, an Afghan climate scientist and associate researcher at the University of Stuttgart in Germany.
Sadid added that since most Afghans rely on agriculture for sustenance and the economy, climate change-induced droughts and floods have been significantly impacting livelihoods, aggravating food insecurity in the country.
According to data recorded by the UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, more than 223,000 Afghans were affected by natural disasters throughout Afghanistan this year alone. Meanwhile, Save the Children estimates that nearly 13 million children will be affected by extreme weather events including droughts and floods.
The impact of climate change will further aggravate the situation in the country which faces a dire humanitarian crisis and an economic collapse.
Experts have also emphasised the need for climate adaptation as Afghanistan has seen a temperature rise of 1.8°C between 1950 and 2010 – twice the global average.
“It is important [that] we look at life-saving adaptation mechanisms such as expanding irrigated agricultural area that has the resilience to the drought,” said Mohammad Assem Mayar, water management expert and lecturer at Kabul Polytechnic University.
But experts say a lack of international funding is a major impediment in Afghanistan’s fight against climate change.
“There is a need to increase the steadily declining climate change adaptation funds which can be transferred to Afghanistan through the existing cash transfer mechanisms,” Mayar suggested, referring to methods employed by international agencies due to the sanctions.
Climate adaptation funding refers to support for specific projects that help local communities adapt to their changing environment. “For instance, aside from expanding irrigated agricultural areas, the impact of drought can be reduced by the construction of small reservoirs, and introducing water-saving technologies,” Mayar said. “Similarly, for floods, diversion dams, watershed management and several small reservoirs could help reduce flow peak.”
He implored the international community to resume projects through UN agencies to reach rural communities that are severely affected by climate change.
“Isolating Afghanistan will mean punishing its people, which is not fair,” Mayar said. “Climate change isn’t going to stop, and without adaptation support, it is akin to gradually pushing the Afghan people towards a death sentence.”